I know I may upset a few people but........

[rockinmum]

I've just read on BBC that 2 British lawyers are going to be representing 5 Iraqi insurgents in court, who were involved in a gun battle in Iraq, with British troops and are now making allegations of torture and murder. It just strikes me as odd that they are going to let this go ahead when the military Special Investigations branch have already investigated it and found no substantiated claims. Do they really think that the insurgants, who obviously don't want us there as they were fighting us, are going to tell the truth in court and not be biased?

They say they heard moaning and gunshots in the prison, but couldn't see what was happening as they were wearing blacked out goggles. What did they expect? A guided tour of the facility designed to keep them in prison? For all they know the other insurgents who were shot could have posed a direct threat to the life of their captor. If anything did go on, as they calsim, then the SIB would have reported it as a breach of the Geneva Convention, which I hasten to add they do not follow so our boys (and girls) don't have that protection when they are captured.

Can't help thinking what happened to the 6 RMPS who were massacred, or the 2 lads who were taken cative before being rescued. And the countless number of Journolists who have been captured, paraded in front of television and told to prepare to die with a knife held to their throat? Or the unlucky (or lucky depending on the circumstances) ones who are found beheaded in a ditcha t the side of some foreign road, barely identifiable.

Sorry just needed to rant, got friends and family in the forces and can't help thinking that they get a raw deal, at home and abroad.

Is it the fact that they are being represented in court at all, or that the lawyers are british that is bothering you?

Everyone should have access to fair trials/legal whatever (sorry, hopeless at legal terminology). We just have to trust that they will be found guilty if they are, innocent if they are...in short, that justice will prevail.

We also cannot start thinking that because someone does something despicable, that we can do it back to them because they are not following the rules so why should we. iyswim. If we start doing that, we are no better.

No it's not the fact they are going to court, or that the lawyers are british, it's the fact that it is in a British Court paid for by us, when the taxes could go to so much more use by the actual forces. i.e. providing the right kit. I agree entirely that if they did it they need to be punoshed but I don't see how they are justifying it after an investigation has been done.
My husband has done tours in Iraq, and lost 6 close friends in 6 months last year. The only investigation they got were, oh yeah they got blown up by a grenade/roadside bomb etc. No looking into why they had no body armour on the front line etc. Just grates on me thats all. And you just know that the anti war lot will use it at their next protest.

They haven't even pursued the insurgents who were responsible for the RMPs, when they are fully aware of the area, descriptions etc, for fear of upsetting the locals who don't run around with AK47s taking pot shots.

Just think that the BBC should really be looking at why this has made the news rather than jumping to the conclusion that they did it. Especially when we have so many more pressing matters on the 'home front'.

Thanks

yes. the treatment by our government of our service personnel is disgusting. It is outragious that they are sent places without the right equipment and I do find it hard to understand why people are not more vocal about that. I think it is important to separate these issues though and not see it as either/or, iyswim.

It is far from clear that the five men who are being represented are in fact 'insurgents'. Everyone is entitled to justice, and if British soldiers are accused of torture and murder then surely we have a responsibility to see that the claims are properly investigated.
Also, one of the lawyers involved in the case has also represented the families of soldiers killed in Iraq. They are two separate issues and shouldn't be confused.

what Rosa said.

And in fact, coroners have ruled that some soldiers have been unlawfully killed ? due to poor equipment, for instance. Justice applies to everyone, whether soldier or civilian.

Just a quick question.....if they're not insurgents why in the blue hell were they involved in a gun battle with British troops? Do you think they just happened to walk around the corner and find a rifle on the floor?

I'm not saying they don't deserve justice, if you read my original posts you'll see that what I was actually saying was why are the BBC reporing on this 'non-current' news story, when there is so much more going on in the world. Also you'll note that the claims have actually already been investigated by the RMP SIB. Which is not an internalinvestigatoin by any means.

I am more than aware that coroners have ruled for unlawful killing in some cases - my friend was actually one of them - but to date nobody has been held responsible for his death. Obviously the death of a loyal British soldier isn't as important to this government/public as the 'alleged' killing of an Iraqi militia.

any post that refers to servicemne as " our boys" get right up my nose.

According to the Guardian:
The five include two farmers, a student, a taxi driver and a baker, according to the statements. Their lawyers said they had "absolutely nothing" to do with the insurgent Mahdi army.

rockin, do you really think soldiers never, ever, make mistakes? It'd hardly be the first time innocent people were victimised, by mistake or otherwise.

Last time I am saying this....read the previous posts by myself. Never did I say they don't make mistakes, they are human. Maybe that's something which should be highlighted to the gen pub over here more often, especially when they are attacked for only doing their jobs.

Quite agree rockinmum.I get fed up of the troops bashing that goes on.

Of course soldiers/other forces personnel are human & we pay them to act AT THAT TIME to the best of their ability with the benefits of the training given. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Mistakes happen in war & no, people should not "get away with it" but lessons can be learned & strategy & training changed as a result to hopefully learn from it for the future. I see no benefit in revisiting a scenario like this that has already been sorted by the SIB.

I just hope it's the Iraqui govt paying for these lawyers not the british tax-payer.

.....and Cod if you don't like the affectionate term sod off out of the thread & hit that hide button you are so fond of !

I don't want to offend anyone in the forces or their families - it must be an incredibly tough time for you all. Sut what I don't understand is why people join the Services and seem surprised when they are expected to fight.

And be outraged when it is suggested that an internal investigation of possible mistakes may not be entirely impartial!

Seeker - U have offended me, my husband is in the forces and goes away on average 6 months a year to war zones, the view you give is of a minority of soldiers and not the majority. I assume you do not know many forces families/serving soldiers to have such a limited view.........(hmm)

I get you completely, rockinmum. My dh is in the navy, and I feel for soldiers and military personnel. Seeker, its not that the military personnel don't want to fight- far from it! It is what they have been trained for and they are keen to do their bit. What they don't expect, however, is to be given crap equipment, awful conditions and no back-up. Did you know for example that the british military spend less per serviceman for food per day than is spent on feeding an MOD DOG! My dh is just back from the gulf, and he was flown in on a journey lasting 48hrs, cos they decided it was too expensiove to fly them straight to their destination. It feels like they get little support back in Britain. They don't get to think about whether it is a justified war or not, they just have to go and put their lives on the line. It must be hard to watch your mates get hurt and killed and then stay impartial toward the perpetrators, so I'm sure there are breaches of conduct- not that I'm condoning them, but easy for us to be high-handed when we are far from that situation. I'm not saying these guys are innocent, but it seems to me that everyone has jumped to the conclusion that these poor Iraquis, who were just walking along minding their own business, were set upon by our vicious, gun happy British soldiers. Do you not think maybe there was more to it than that? We are right to protect the rights of our captives, but bear in mind that "our boys" wouldn't be afforded the same luxury if they were captured. Our troops aren't the bad guys- they are just doing the job they've been sent to do, by a government who obviously think they are disposable.

I don't think anyone has jumped unreasopnably to a conclusdion that the British troops acted wrongly. The Panorama programme last night discussing this case was very balanced. Unfortunately the evidence does seem rather inconclusive either way.

But as for the suggestion that this case should not be investigated in a court of law, with all proper forms of representation, that is awful.

Of course British troops have had a hard time (and lacked proper back-up from the govet). But they are an occupying army, following a morally dubious invasion of sovereign territory. The possibility of war crimes always has to be thoroughly investigated, by impartial authorities. We have already seen numerous war crimes from the US forces, and some from the Brits.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone - but people surely know what they are going into? It's the Army - of course that involved long deployments abroad.

And it's no use comparing the treatment British prisoners might get with the treatment given to the Iraquis - the whole point is that "we" are supposed treat people better and have more rubust systems to ensure the humane treatment of prisoners.

Thank god! I thought I was the only person out there who felt this was a waste of time and money. For those of you who obviously think you know about the forces, the MP SIB is actually a legally responsible unit, whose investigations into these circumstances will also have been forwarded to an outside agency, for them to look into and ask for further info if they feel it has not been covered.

Seeker - Yes everyone who joins the forces knows they are going to have to fight at some point for thier country, I know that myself and my friends signed up just following 9/11. And yes long deployments are expected, however what the 'press' for the forces don't tell you is that quite often you are away for 6 months, brought home and then sent on another tour for 6 months after only a few weeks at home. I have a friend who has spent a grand total of 27 days in the UK (the country he fights for BTW) in the last 2 years. He served in Iraq, came home and got sent to Afghanistan. Obviously he didn't expect this when he signed his life away for 9 years.

Also, no-one is comparing the treatment of British and Iraqi prisoners. I merely mentioned that only our side are signitories of the Geneva Convention. I'm sure that if it was your husband over there being shot at for wearing a uniform you too would feel some kind of compassion for them.

I'll always remember what a friend of mine told me when he came home. 'It's easier for them, they can see us coming, we all wear a uniform and make sure they know who we are so as not to frighten the innocents as we pass through an area. They don't, I've had women, men and children throw grenades at me, and aim rifles at me preparing to shoot. How are we supposed to make that split second decision of whether to shoot them and stop them killing us, or to hold fire and get shot so that we don't have to face a well publicised civilian
investigation into our actions.'

Would you like to make this choice for £20,000 a year, little food, sleeping in a tent in a war zone where you get mortered every night?

In fact there is a thing on facebook about the forces which has quite a good point in the form of a poem. It talks about how people back home cry because their family/friends are moving away from them, but a soldier doesn't have the chance to sit and cry about his friends being dead, because he has a job to do protecting the ones that are left.

It just sickens me that troops can't even get on public transport, or drive a civilian vehicle long distance whilst in uniform because of the threat to their life while in their country.

Exactly rockinmum- what is done in the heat of battle or occupation is often examined in detail in the cold light of day & criticised.

Of course we should learn from each awful situation - use the experience to learn & move on. That's how military history is made & used to determine future policy

If we were in THAT position at THAT moment with THAT information (or lack of) would we not do the same? I don't know I wasn't there & neither was anyone else so we don't have the right to comment.

We do have the right however to demand that our troops are as well equipped and well prepared as can be to deal with the crap they face and that is where we fail them miserably by accepting that the government is doing the best by them - they are not and we are the laughing stock of the world because of it.

hear hear!

If the Iraquis send troops here in the future to get rid of our government with the support of most of the country, and there are a few who oppose the change, I would call them insurgents. Just as here in Scotland I don't support the Scottish Liberation Front- they don't speak for the majority. Personally, FWIW I don't think the troops should be there either, but they don't get the option. So I think once they are there, as the result of a government voted in by the people of this country, then we should support them better.

Dittany I agree they shouldn't be there either but that's a different arguement.

If they ARE there then the govt that sent them there should back them up & equip them properly for the job. You wouldn't catch the Yanks putting up with half the shit our troops do. They are massively better equipped than our forces & can't understand why there isn't more fuss made on behalf of the British.

It's not the tommy on the ground who makes these choices or even their CO's it's the bean counters in Whitehall who have to answer to the Govt.